text:
Spatial and Temporal Analysis of Extreme Precipitation under Climate Change over Gandaki Province, Nepal
Fiberglass as a Novel Building Material: A Life Cycle Assessment of a Pilot House
Assessing Participation: Toward Long-Term Experiences, Trajectories and Maturity
10.3390/architecture2040038
Hamarat, Y.
Schelings, C.
Elsen, C.
Open AccessEditorial
Participation: A Disciplinary Border for Architectural Research and Practice
Yaprak Hamarat
Clémentine Schelings
Catherine Elsen
Inter'Act Lab, University of Liege, 4000 Liège, Belgium
Architecture 2022, 2(4), 711-723; https://doi.org/10.3390/architecture2040038
Received: 24 October 2022 / Accepted: 27 October 2022 / Published: 7 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Contemporary Issues in Participatory Architecture)
This editorial note provides an extended summary and transversal analysis of ten articles gathered for the 2022 Special Issue on participation in contemporary architecture. The call for contribution circulated in June 2021 attracted papers from Central Europe (n = 8) and North America (n = 2), and presents an overview of ongoing practices and research in participatory architecture in these areas. The Special Issue aimed to study the connections between disciplines and gathered nine empirical cases and one literature review. In this editorial note, we first analyze these contributions to better understand the nature of architecture in participating in the profiles of end-users and project teams, and the scale of the projects. Secondly, we highlight four lessons taken from these practices and studies: we emphasize how participation in architecture (1) emerges and operates in interstitial spaces; (2) often deployed for and with "vulnerable" end-user groups, this "vulnerability" provides power and originality to processes and outcomes; (3) inspirational principles, guides, and frameworks are produced as outcomes; and finally, (4) social architectures are deployed beyond tangible concepts through a multilevel relationship to pedagogy. Finally, we observe that reflections on gender, politics, decoloniality, and disciplinary transfers remain underexplored and need to be explicitly studied and integrated.
participation; participatory processes in architecture; collaboration; co-design; user involvement; architectural practice; architectural research
Participation can be metaphorically considered as a disciplinary border. A border, in the sense of Richard Sennett, is defined as: "a site of exchange where organisms become more interactive" [1] (p. 227). As a site for such exchange, participation converts the disciplines' sometimes strict boundaries into soft borders, where engagement towards the inside and the outside declines into exploratory and plural practices. Those borders are active, alive, dynamic, and creative ecologies. Participation thus generates opportunities for experimentation, enabling and creating new forms of engagement between parts. However, borders are also places of resistance and ambiguities, failures and tensions, repetitions and transformations [1], and from these social encounters new problems arise between humans and non-humans, thus questioning their ecological nature.
In this Special Issue, ten articles show how participation in architecture re-questions the disciplinary and spatial boundaries, and how to transform them into active interdisciplinary borders. They also reveal issues created by participative approaches (such as power relations between participants), or help identify the resistance still offered by normative structures and the limited impact participation might hold on architectural programming and design in the long run. Sennett reminds us of the incompatibility of normative structures when it comes to collaborating and co-creating [1]. In contemporary architecture, participation as a form of social process faces this dilemma: it evolves in and generates unpredictable, organic, and transformative social encounters, while still operating (most of the time) with and within normative contexts.
As expressed in the call for papers, we wanted to shed light on recent research and practice in participatory architecture. In addition, we wanted to see whether there are disciplinary knowledge transfers towards architecture, from close and related (design) disciplines. Are there any adapted, renewed tools, methods, environments and models of interaction and participation tailored explicitly for, and transferred into, the architectural field? How is participation in architecture put into practice? Additionally, more broadly, what does participation in architecture mean, and what is the participatory space offered to the users in architecture today? Some of these questions find answers in this Special Issue, others remain to be explored. Beyond that, the ten selected contributions reveal new insights and raise new questions about participatory architecture today, while demonstrating the shifting nature of contemporary architectural research and practice.
This Special Issue gathers cases from urban planning, hospital management, cultural heritage policies, semi-private restrooms spaces, retirement homes, age-friendly neighborhoods, and social housing. Integrating participation, it expands the traditional understanding of architecture and covers other space–time forms. However, research on participatory architecture presented in this Special Issue only illustrates work carried out in countries from Central Europe (Belgium (3), France (3), and United Kingdom (2)) and North America (Canada (1) and the United States of America (1)), despite our efforts to collaborate with other areas of the world.
Nine research papers building on empirical studies and one review together offer a view of how participation is practiced and researched in architecture. All authors highlight the interdisciplinary or multi-actor nature of (more often than not) project-oriented research. All empirical contributions are exploratory by nature, either explicitly expressed as such or not. They present a limited physical impact on the long-term built environment, but rather yield transformative architectural experiences for individuals and communities, enabling real social and cultural changes. The papers gathered here show that participation remains a highly context-based experiment, trying to articulate a multi-actor set of complex, and sometimes irreconcilable, perspectives.
This editorial note offers both a global and transversal view of these contributions. After a crossed summary of articles, a transversal lecture allows us to extract four lessons learned from the documented practices: participation is (1) still maneuvering in interstices; (2) keeping vulnerabilities in good sight; (3) still looking for principles and guides; and (4) constantly nurturing a social stance on architecture.
2. Anatomy of Papers
Beyond the abstract proposed by the authors, a short summary of each paper is presented here, shaped by the prism of questions that arose from our Call. This exercise helps to map these papers and understand the current nature of research on participatory architecture, as well as the current nature of participation in architectural practice. In each paper, we want to determine who is the end-user, what is the scale of the project, and the suggested vision of architecture and of participation. When possible, we situate papers in regard to their research strategy and to the relationship researchers hold with their empirical cases. This cross-analysis of papers reveals that some contributions are design-process-oriented, whereas others are design-outcome-oriented. Between the lines, we also point out the main original contribution(s) of each article, at least considered through the lens of participatory architecture.
The Challenges and Advantages of Implementing a Lean-Led Design Approach
In her paper, Chbaly [2] introduces Lean-led design as a strong participatory alternative, likely to fundamentally help re-shape complex design projects such as those implemented in healthcare-related fields. Lean principles adapted to healthcare ecosystems transcend beyond the hunt for unnecessary waste: although initially considered for the late operational phases of a project, the Lean-led design model suggested here is seen as a patient-centered approach that aims to optimize architectural environments, understood as complex processes augmented by safe, empowering, and supportive spaces. Digging deeply into a large case study (The New Hospital in Quebec), Chbaly conducted archival analysis, interviews, and five "kaizen" workshops, nurturing a transparent, research-action-oriented analysis of the Lean-led design approach. Similarly to other participatory models, she lists five important advantages that tend to balance four recurrent limitations (including a lack of resources and time, lack of "know-how", and turned-over or dominating actors); moreover, she delineates modifications of power balance likely to occur between architects and users in such complex paradigms.
Aspects of Designing Inclusively from Practitioner Perspectives
Lamirande's [3] article begins with the observation that there is an increasing body of inclusive design theory, which reflects both a growing interest in integrating the diversity of end-users, but also some confusion about how to apply these multiple and sometimes contradictory definitions and concepts. Without attempting to unravel these theories, this exploratory research relies on the perspectives of practitioners and how they implement the participation of marginalized and disabled populations into concrete projects. To better understand how they design inclusively, semi-structured interviews were conducted with six practitioners (an architect, an industrial designer, a UXUI designer, an engineer, and two artists) who share their experience in advocating for the principles of inclusion in their design decision-making processes. Architecture is one of the disciplines studied here through the lens of inclusive design, and the scale of the projects described by the interviewees ranges from buildings and public spaces to mobile applications. The data collected enabled the author to highlight 24 "aspects" which are avenues to encourage the better uptake of inclusive design and to guide other designers and architects in their practice, whether in terms of general project development, interactions within the design team, or the active involvement of a variety of end users. The aspects corresponding to this last point are related to the necessary practitioners' conviction and motivation to "actioning change" and to adopt a "logic of involvement"; the importance of moving beyond "presumptions and disability prejudice"; the ongoing nature of the inclusion process which is not an end in itself and requires "maintenance"; the benefits of the "earliest involvement" of users; the challenges of the "recruitment" process; the various levels of "participation"; and the "compensation" for participants. Those concerns illustrate the deep interweaving of inclusive design and participatory design, which both target a better public involvement in design processes and sometimes suffer from a lack of commitment from practitioners.
Promoting social interaction through participatory architecture: Experimentation, experience, evaluation in a social housing complex (Grand'Goule, Poitiers, 1974–2021)
In their retrospective analysis of the Grand'Goule social housing complex built in 1974 in eastern France, Loiseau, Safin, and Tufano [4] demonstrate the gap between architects' participatory intentions and the real use of spaces designed with this aim. Through archive document analysis and a rich narrative, the authors reveal a detailed presentation of this specific social housing complex case, where explicit participatory issues were expressed and annotated in architectural plans. Moreover, the study holds a strategic, future-oriented relevance. Reaching its 50th year, the social housing complex is indeed entering a renovation process including new participatory intentions, although still inhabitant-oriented. This multi-sourced and "retrospective vs. present" methodology is refreshing and dynamic; its diversity contributes to exhibit the particularity and complexity of architectural research when investigating architectural situated issues. Loiseau, Safin, and Tufano thus highlight the lessons to learn from the past, and aim to transfer them to today's practices, in order to slowly tighten the gap between design intentions and genuine participation. The case study reintroduces the concept and practice of "participation in use" originally imagined by the architects and renews this participatory debate, while revealing its limits. Even though the article holds to an extended traditional understanding of architecture, i.e., the materialist link between spaces and social interactions, between the lines the authors also reveal that social interactions per se are architectural.
Citizen participation in architecture and urban planning confronted with Arnstein's ladder: four experiments into popular neighbourhoods of Hainaut demonstrate another hierarchy
In their contribution, Romariz Peixoto, Rectem, and Pouleur [5] discuss the well-known, but also much discussed and controversial, Arnstein ladder. They challenge its hierarchical nature and the power relations it illustrates, suggesting that those should not be seen as "top down" and unilateral anymore, but rather interlocking and multiple in nature. Four cases across the Belgian and French borders are studied in detail and enable comparisons of participation driven by the associative sector with participation driven by bureaucratic management. Here, the participatory process targets people with access to social services on both sides of the border. Following the authors, the "information level" of the ladder should no longer be stuck in the lower steps, but rather could constitute a transversal condition necessary to achieve participation. Likewise, the "manipulation" and "delegation" levels of the ladder are no longer considered as opposite extremes, but rather as conditions that can occur in any type of participation: higher levels of the ladder, long considered by Arnstein as the participatory ideal for which one should aim, are shown to be as potentially subjected to manipulation as any other levels. For example, the «delegation level» can lead to the exclusion of some citizens along the making process, whereas the «concertation level» more efficiently gathered profiles such as young couples than the «co-design level». The authors eventually suggest a five-level ladder that clarifies how different approaches ("information", "consultation", "concertation", "co-design", and "co-management") hold different added values considering the context. None of those five levels are more suitable than the other anymore, and all of them build on the assumption that citizen expertise should be considered on equal terms with any other form of expertise. This renewed ladder accommodates all types of initiatives (be they top-down or bottom-up), is more responsive to unexpected field events, and thus solves many of Arnstein's model limitations.
Here, the value of various participatory methods is revealed through each field's particularities and end-users' profiles. The architecture is addressed through the urban retrofitting of two social housing projects. In one case, these urban transformations impact neighborhood infrastructure and living conditions; in another, the collective spaces are at the heart of the design concerns.
What Participation Creates in Experimental Design Practices. The Case of a Mobile Third Place Built in a Retirement Home
In her paper, Royer [6] presents the case of an interdisciplinary project (architecture, design, and art) in the south of France that aims to create participatory design conditions for elderly people to explore new usages. The author shows how residents and workers of a retirement home can become active makers of their architectural space, which is no longer limited to retirement home buildings. Beyond those walls, the participatory process indeed enables investigation of a temporary and mobile extension. Maintaining permanence on the construction site allows daily participation and modifies the design process and outcome, which has to consider available resources on the field, and has to rely on simple techniques in a self-built dynamic. Day-to-day interactions and present-time-centered actions reveal potential and possible usages. Through their involvement, the residents build the "immaterial" side of architecture—time, dynamics, a temporary experience, and social encounters—all through this mobile space. Therefore, the architecture, as the outcome of the design project, also comes to life through the involvement of participants.
The paper thus proposes an extensive understanding of what architecture could mean, through the interdisciplinary and participative process that creates it. This project's interdisciplinary nature also allows users' physical states and needs to define the tools and participation protocols (e.g., daily equipment transformed into painting tools to participate). In her paper, the author proposes shifts from participation to involvement, from intervention to permanency, and from future building to present-oriented design through self-building and event-oriented activities. "The action research through experimentation" is the assumed research strategy of this project; it aims to not only describe, but accompany, transformations. The author, a designer researcher, is actively involved in the project through a multidisciplinary team accompanying the participatory process, composed of "builders-architects", an artist, a sociologist, students, elderly people, their caregivers, retirement home professionals, and residents of the local city.
Pizza and Poop: Using Playful Probes to Investigate Community in Semi-Public Restrooms on a University Campus
In their paper, Sanders, Murteza, and Sabatelli [7] raise the question of community in an uncommon semi-private space: semi-public restrooms on a university campus. They shift the way we see these transitional places, and the role they play in our daily life. Here, architecture is understood as an interior semi-public limited place, serving a specific purpose. By questioning the notion of the community through these spaces, they highlight the social role of architecture. To do so, the authors deployed different probes. Their results show that participation in these sensitive places requires adapted tools and strategies and reveals issues related to anonymity, gender, power relationships, and the necessity of participatory design of the methodology and data analysis. The authors highlight that participatory design in/about such a set-up is possible, but requires anonymity of the person to avoid inappropriate and insulting comments. It also requires playfulness; the probes need to be provocative and evocative.
The research strategy deployed in this paper reveals, once again, how participatory research and design are intertwined. Here, the research question is quite clear: «how a community is fostered in semi-public restrooms on a college campus». The research team used a participatory approach to collect and analyze the data to answer this question. Additionally, the outcomes are first discussed to reveal issues in the participatory design process and practice. The authors highlight the researchers' biases and choices when designing and practicing "a participant-led approach." This reflective practice is one of the main contributions of this paper. The other one is the six lessons revealed about participatory practices in sensitive places. Researchers and designers can easily take them into account and extend them to similar contexts to improve their participatory mindsets.
Assessing Participation: Towards Long-term Experiences, Trajectories and Maturity
In their paper, Schelings and Elsen [8] argue that time has now come to assess participation: after years of experimentations, evaluation is henceforth necessary, in order to build knowledge on successes and failures and to reach accountability. In that regard, they ask: how could the designers of participatory approaches conduct such assessment, while still taking into account unique participatory trajectories, both in regard to each participant's background and each specific context? Could time play a role in participation maturity and, if so, how could assessment unfold in the long run? To answer those questions, the researchers designed a process to evaluate participation, building on both "on the spot" logbooks (allowing them to keep track of the participants' profiles, their participatory background, and their participatory experience from one workshop to another), and on retrospective focus groups to integrate long-term experiences and expectations. They implemented their process through 12 participatory workshops organized in four cities, gathering 230 citizens. The participatory issues at stake here unfold in urban ecosystems and at a diversity of scales: co-designing a house for associations; reflecting on smart meters at home; solving traffic congestion around a school; or co-designing the program of a cultural center.
In this study, the co-authors acted as researchers/facilitators/participation professionals: they designed the protocols, facilitated the activities, designed the assessment tools, and managed interactions with the participants and cities' stakeholders. By integrating participants into the assessment process, they position their approach towards participatory action research: the participants moved away from being a simple "subject" of participation and became protagonists of the research and its assessment. The authors show that the overall quality of the participation process does not seem to be uniquely linked to the ultimate success of the design output, at least from the participants' points of view. Their satisfaction and expectation levels are rather met when the participatory process adequately matches their participatory background, side-by-side with the cities' participatory maturity. The researchers thus suggest an analytical tool to assess participation both "on the spot" and in the long run, which includes levels of satisfaction, levels of expectations (and their evolution through time), participatory backgrounds of the participants, and participatory maturity from the organizing agency.
Co-Designing Age-Friendly Neighborhood Spaces in Copenhagen: Starting with an Age-Friendly Co-Design Process
Given the growing aging population, Carroll and Nørtoft's [9] paper focuses specifically on the active participation of senior users in the design process of environments adapted to their specific and various needs. Compared with the existing literature, this process-oriented study differs by focusing the research on the age-friendliness of the co-design process, rather than on the age-friendly solutions that result from it. The interdisciplinary team, composed of an architect and an anthropologist, plays the roles of researchers, facilitators, and practitioners. In a vulnerable neighborhood in Copenhagen, two parallel co-design processes were conducted with more than 100 low-income and elderly people from two public housing areas. After four workshops (immersion, ideation, prototyping, and presentation), implementation events took place in order to build urban facilities such as benches, bird boxes, or flowerpots in shared open spaces of the neighborhood. Through the exploration of different methods of participation (mapping, collages, models, prototypes, presentations, lectures, and events), several insights emerged to implement co-design processes that could also work with an older audience. First, communication towards non-designers should be as explicit as possible and the process should follow predictable steps even if the creative design process tends to be divergent and fuzzy. Clarity will save time and increase efficiency with older people who are easily distracted or become tired more quickly by this type of activity. For these same reasons, a second tip is to offer multiple and flexible participation options through the same co-design process. The level of involvement of participants can therefore vary greatly depending on their interest, experience, ability, or the effort required, but also on their availability for those activities. Third and finally, this study revealed the relevance of 1:1 scale prototyping with seniors, which enabled them to accelerate the development of ideas and to create a shared understanding, taking into account the different realities of all the participants in terms of health, mobility, language, etc.
2W + H systematic review to (re)draw Actors and Challenges of Participation(s): Focus on Cultural Heritage
In their review, Stiti and Ben Rajeb [10] delineate paths for further research in participation related to cultural heritage. The Council of Europe has addressed, through its Faro Convention, the importance and benefits of citizens' involvement for the significance and future of our Cultural Heritage. However, despite this shared vision, the systematic literature review conducted by the authors demonstrates how challenging the implementation of participation in the heritage field still seems to be.
One of the main challenges to be addressed (in research and on the field) resonates with others discussed elsewhere in this Special Issue, namely, the articulation and (non)inclusivity of actors maintaining various agendas, specifically in regard to cultural heritage. Thus, social, political, and financial actors navigate the blurry borders between political and social participation and sometimes struggle to hear each other's voice. Stiti and Ben Rajeb suggest overcoming this difficulty by recognizing each stakeholder's legitimacy (instead of organizing their actions given their "individual label"). They thus delineate three profiles of actors: Actors by Knowledge (e.g., experts, be they technical or scientific), Actors by Action (e.g., financial and political actors), and Actors by Knowing (e.g., social actors, inhabitants, people knowledgeable about the immediate context). According to the authors, today's most crucial challenge when it comes to participation in cultural heritage is both democratic and scientific in nature, and consists of acknowledging "Actors by Knowing" role, and considering their "non-institutional knowledge" as significant as other forms of knowledge.
Architect Collectives and the Coproduction of Places in the "Grey Zones" of Urban Development Planning: The Educational Institution as a Mediation Framework
This paper [11] focuses on the coproduction of urban spaces with inhabitants and presents two French experiments conducted by two architect collectives in partnership with researchers. The three authors are (1) a researcher, (2) an architect practitioner and member of the first collective, and (3) a researcher and member of the second collective. In contrast with the traditional figure of the architect as the sole master of design, Zetlaoui-Léger, Macaire, and Tcherkassky emphasize how architect collectives advocate a horizontal relationship with users in design and programming and a general awareness of architectural culture in a pedagogical perspective. This social and democratic vision of architecture usually leads to participatory processes that aim to reuse and appropriate in-between spaces, third places, and abandoned but meaningful areas on the fringe of more strategic official projects. The two experiments took place in the educational sphere; pupils and local children were involved in a participatory process to reinvent spaces in their school under renovation (courtyard, library, entry, and garden), and to imagine the school entrance and transitional use of vacant lots surrounding an urban tramway project. Children were involved as apprentices, making, learning, and familiarizing themselves with various roles (investigators, surveyors, builders, architects, urban planners, and designers). These participatory initiatives and the presence of "educational architects" improved communication among stakeholders and raised awareness about everyday uses and needs. The establishment of a learning process in which uncertainty and temporary are allowed challenged the normative, sequential, and functionalist approaches adopted by educational institutions and technical operators. For this reason, this type of project requires "allies" or "boundary spanners" who are willing to take risks and responsibilities to ensure the commitment of the different actors. In these process-based and practice-oriented cases, efforts are still needed to ensure the legitimacy of the solutions and their follow-up over time. For the inhabitants, the process became as important as the object left and the storytelling continued, creating a new communal culture and improving the school's reputation.
3. Four Lessons Learned from Participation in Architecture
The anatomy of papers proposed in the previous section teaches us several lessons about participatory practices deployed in architecture today. First, participation might take place in undefined and unexpected spaces: abandoned areas, third places, and in-between spaces. The particularity of these places stands in their openness to welcome the unpredictable [12,13]. Therefore, they escape normativity and enable the hosting of peculiar participatory approaches. Their unachieved nature calls for a "natality", as termed by Hannah Arendt [14].
Second, participatory practices and research are often deployed for and with vulnerable end-user groups, such as working-class citizens, children, immigrant communities, elderly people, and hospital patients. Their vulnerability mobilizes creative and dynamic methodological and conceptual participatory approaches. Their vulnerabilities moreover give them the willpower to experiment in order to improve their environment [15].
Third, the practice and research on participation increasingly tend to produce knowledge to iteratively guide and enhance these practices. Those practices are intimately linked to research fields and researchers, multidisciplinary teams, and interdisciplinary approaches. These are "reflective practitioners", who generate verbal and non-verbal knowledge through participatory actions [16].
The fourth and final lesson from participation is its intrinsic connection with pedagogy. Beyond the material dimension, the participatory process nurtures social architectures. It builds communities and networks, reveals stories and experiences, accompanies transformations, and improves awareness by relying on a pedagogical dimension. Beyond the possible satisfaction of collaboratively succeeding in reaching a shared goal, participation indeed creates satisfaction through engaging with a process, through the very act of sharing and co-designing and through empowerment.
These four lessons offer us some courses of action to transform disciplinary "boundaries" of architecture into "borders" toward transdisciplinarity [1]. We aim to highlight these characteristics of participation in architecture that allow new "narratives" and "assemblages" between humans, and between humans and nonhumans, as described by Tsing's work on ecology, understood here as a system where "open and dynamic multispecies" life exists [15]. We believe that participatory initiatives create such systems in contemporary architecture today. By doing so, they tend to improve the ecological nature of architectural practice and research. Interstices, vulnerabilities, principles, and guides, and finally, social architecture through pedagogy, are believed to be key elements of this participatory architecture ecology.
3.1. Interstices
Whether explicitly or not, the contributions revealed that participation may take place outside the traditional boundaries and categories of architecture (as a discipline, as a participatory environment), thus creating unusual uses of space and time. Zetlaoui-Léger, Macaire, and Tcherkassky, for instance, focus on participatory approaches that are developed by collectives of architects [11]. Citizen participation takes place in two "grey areas", i.e., neglected spaces emerging at the interstices of different urban development projects driven by authorities. The participation process implemented in this case instilled a culture of architecture and urbanism in children, and included participation in the architecture of everyday life.
Royer's analysis of a mobile-home project connected to a retirement home shows that architecture is not limited to the building of the retirement home itself, but may expand beyond it in time and space through a third place [6]. The mobile home's design, production, and uses became a participatory project between the residents; this alternative, temporary architecture thus crystallizes participation. This interdisciplinary process, positioned at the interstice between art, architecture, and design, as well as the dialectic between the permanence of the retirement home building and its ephemeral mobile extension, fostered the retirement home community.
This in-between situation strongly resonates with the "undesigned spaces" highlighted in Loiseau, Tufano, and Safin's [4] paper. The case focuses on a social housing complex, and the authors analyze participation in architecture through the lens of communal areas intended to be designed by residents throughout their use. Architects created these spaces for «participation in use»; in other words, residents were invited to appropriate and use these shared areas to define their futures once they had already moved into the complex. In this case, participation itself is occurring "in between", i.e., not during, a predetermined time-frame nor activity, but beyond: on the long haul of design in use.
These papers show that participation may occur in interstitial spaces and times of architecture, and not always in the main spaces and moments of pre-programmed activities. In these contributions, participation generally unfolds in collective spaces, be they institutionalized or unexpected (grey areas, third places, undesigned communal spaces, and semi-public restrooms). On the other hand, they rarely take root in regard to the individual and intimate dimensions of architecture.
These papers thus reveal a possible characteristic of participation: its relationship with interstices. They question the capacity of participation to operate in other dimensions of architecture, and their added-value when operating as such. In that regard, we keep wondering: can participation open doors of intimacy and individuality in architecture? What different added-values does participation bring, when thought inside the traditional divisions of architectural spaces vs. thought outside, in and about the unexpected interstices?
3.2. Vulnerabilities
Vulnerability is another lesson extracted from the contributions. Different participatory issues studied in these papers are indeed closely associated with vulnerable situations, communities, spaces, or methodologies. In their review, Stiti and Ben Rajeb identified "older people", "adults", "citizens", and "children" as the most frequently involved participants in multidisciplinary social participation projects. "Students", "Individuals or groups based on their sexual life", "households and parents", and "patients" appear much less frequently [10]. This analysis demonstrates that some communities are solicited more than others when it comes to participatory projects; it also reveals that studies sometimes define their users' groups very loosely.
Romariz Peixoto, Rectem, and Pouleur, aiming to renew Arnstein's ladder of participation, utilized field material involving socially disadvantaged people [5]. In the Épinlieu "Pallets" Project, the bottom-up, intergenerational participatory process of co-designing public furniture met multiple obstacles. However, the inhabitants' solidarity enabled alternative solutions to be built again and again, overcoming the fact that authorities kept requiring modifications to the successive iterations. This observation is consistent with socially disadvantaged communities active in the social housing complex, as documented by Loiseau, Tufano, and Safin [4]: in the interweaving of their daily activities, they need extra energy to be able to find and invest time and engagement into the participatory process. This observation reveals the double weight that participation might have on these communities: on the one hand, they are the ones engaging energy and creativity; on the other hand, they are the ones resisting and developing coping strategies.
In his study, Lamirande argues that the participatory design is seeking democratic consensus among as many people as possible, and inclusive design focuses on the needs of a small, marginalized group [3]. In this second case, the issue of recruitment is particularly sensitive, because it can highlight differences and create discomfort among participants who do not necessarily wish to share what usually makes them the "oppressed" or "unheard".
Carroll and Nørtoft's research, for its part, focuses on the age-friendliness of the co-design process [9]. The four-workshop participatory process implemented in two social housing units in a deprived area of Copenhagen demonstrates that some usual co-design practices and methods can also work with a vulnerable public. By focusing on a longitudinal age-friendly process rather than on an age-friendly design solution, this contribution provides some guiding principles for developing a co-design process that works with older people (although not exclusively).
This work resonates with Royer's process-oriented outcomes instead of outcome-oriented design [6]. In her description, Royer reveals how the daily equipment in the retirement home was adapted and deviated from its usual use to serve the creative participation of aging residents. The residents' vulnerabilities and physical limits in this case leveraged collective aesthetic decisions and actions. Sanders, Murteza, and Sabatelli also highlight methodological issues when it comes to participatory design and research in sensitive places [7]. For example, they reveal how some probes worked better than others in public restrooms, which are very intimate places, and how the relations to others are different depending on gender in these places.
These cases show that participation often carries different dimensions of vulnerability. On the one hand, a particular community can face new vulnerable issues when engaging in participatory contexts. On the other hand, vulnerabilities can become a tool to creatively participate in a project. Furthermore, the contexts, the profile of communities, and their specific vulnerabilities question the choices of methodologies and tools for participation. The attention that we should pay to vulnerabilities in participatory research and architecture is the second lesson we care to highlight in this Special Issue.
3.3. Principles and Guides
Five of the ten selected papers tend to propose inspirational principles, guides, and frameworks both for participatory research and architecture practice. A five-level ladder suggested by Romariz Peixoto, Rectem, and Pouleur re-questions the different types of participation (information, consultation, or citizen control, for instance) and their perceived hierarchy, and rather offers to look at participation through the lens of citizen expertise, balanced with technical or political skills [5]. Sanders, Murteza, and Sabatelli, after analyzing the particularity of participatory actions in semi-public restrooms, propose six lessons to keep in mind when designing participation for/in sensitive spaces [7]. Royer draws a tripartite framework of participation in multidisciplinary projects [6]. She highlights how the use of permanence in the community, the process of self-construction of prototypes by these communities (together with interdisciplinary actors), and the conception of an ephemeral production are embodying participation. By doing so, she proposes action-driven participation instead of participation-driven action. Schelings and Elsen suggest a framework to re-think participatory assessment through the lenses of time, participatory background, and maturity [8]. Finally, Lamirande's [3] research proposes aspects of inclusive design that can inspire and guide practitioners in participation processes conducted with disabled users and marginalized groups.
This predominance illustrates the need for more framework and structure: after more than half a century since Scandinavian's Participatory Design revival, the field is still seeking recommendations and stabilized practices. However, will it ever achieve to do so? And should it?
3.4. Social Architecture through Pedagogy
Participatory architecture, as discussed in four articles [6,10,11], reveals the close and strong link between participatory science and education. From the projects studied by the authors, we emphasize three main observations:
Pedagogy could be embodied in participatory architecture, simply because of the choice of community with whom the participatory process is driven. Neighborhood schools, pupils, and teachers then become the participant groups. The participatory process integrates their pedagogical objectives and needs, in an attempt to co-design the participatory process itself.
In such inter-related contexts, teams who drive these approaches are often multidisciplinary, including researchers, architects, designers, and stakeholders from action-research strategies with strong connections with universities. Those teams undo the separation between academia and other worlds and improve hybridization between knowledge and people.
Participatory approaches in the architectural project are one way to reveal personal stories and experiences, an opportunity to enhance awareness of the built environment and its political impact on communities' daily lives; they play a pedagogical role for citizenship and the personal development of participants.
Architectural projects thus become a lever for raising awareness, community building, empowering, and creating connections; in other words, they are a way to produce social architecture and transformation beyond the material that drives the project.
In two articles [6,11], we highlight this social architecture through pedagogy in regard to the methodological outcome of the participatory approach by itself. This methodology creates permanency in the fieldwork, in addition to the community. The collective involvement builds immaterial manufacturing and a new storyline. To conclude, Stiti and Ben Rajeb, in their literature review, describe that in participation, when it comes to managing cultural heritage futures, the interactions between inhabitants, political and financial actors, and technical and scientific actors are driven by one or both of these axes: democracy and science [10].
These pedagogical dimensions, as embodied in participatory practices in architecture, produce social architectures. In other words, beyond the built environment, they transform and create cultures, communities, narratives, usages, and relations to other beings. What are the natures and meanings of these social architectures produced by participatory practices and research? We need to study and better understand the latter's ecology to better align the participatory actions.
4. Agenda for Future Research
These four lessons constitute what this Special Issue has to offer when it comes to participation and architecture, thanks to these circumscribed but rich ten contributions. This overview raises new questions, highlighting missing issues and unanswered questions that we still want to explore.
The scale of the projects studied through these contributions shows that architecture has to be understood as a wide range of spaces–times, of tangible and intangible structures, from urban spaces to restrooms, and mobile homes to heritage management. This movement between tangible and intangible is also visible within the contributions, their nature shifting from outcome-oriented approaches to process-oriented approaches. In that regard, the Special Issue reflects the nature of contemporary participatory architecture. However, we want to highlight here that all contributions consider participation in large-scale projects and public spaces, for groups or communities. In that regard, participation still seems unable to operate on intimate scales for individual architectural projects. We wonder: are the interactions between clients/end-users and their architects still too steeped in the model of the designer being seen as the sole master of the design process?
We also observe that the authors are often intimately connected and involved in the empirical cases discussed in this Special Issue, acting as designers, researchers, or both.
This questions the origin of participatory initiatives in architectural projects, either totally driven by the concerned communities (without the involvement of any researcher, architect or design professionals, or researchers. In that regard, we wonder: are we still aiming for 100% bottom-up participation? Or is targeting this ideal complete nonsense? Following Romariz Peixoto, Rectem, and Pouleur's paper, the participation ideals can no longer be realized through the higher levels of Arnstein's ladder [5]. Unattainable standards are rather translating into the implementation of purely bottom-up initiatives (be they consultative or co-creative in nature), which reveals some fragility in time and sometimes limits the number of people who can actually become involved in the long run. Considering what the authors call "counter-effects," those initiatives are still meaningful, responsive, and more adaptable regarding field uncertainties.
While writing the call for papers, we also wondered whether there are disciplinary knowledge and practice transfers toward architecture. Do participatory practices in architecture and research mobilize other disciplines' tools and methods when integrating end-users and stakeholders in their process? For instance, in her paper, Chbaly studies the value of Lean-led participatory processes and shows how a concept originally stemming from management and applied to manufacturing can relevantly shake the ways to participate in large and complex healthcare architectural projects [2]. When applied as soon as the project definition, the Lean approach expands into Lead-led design and enables transcending beyond the mere optimization of processes: although its historical roots in "reaching a waste-free process" might have reassured the skeptics, its patient-focused goals created commitment and common vision, both essential while pursuing participation throughout the long-term scale of building a hospital. Similarly, the teams presented in Royer's [6] paper and Zetlaoui-Léger, Macaire, and Tcherkassky's [11] paper show the interdisciplinary nature of the projects, and how stakeholders from different backgrounds can complement each other from the very beginning of the process onwards. Except for these papers, the knowledge transfers between disciplines are less visible or clearly named in other contributions. Could these practices still exist, but remain less explicitly visualized or expressed? When relevant, we argue that it is now time for researchers to reveal those transdisciplinary transfers: building a better understanding of what "participatory architecture" entails more than ever necessitates clarifying those transfers towards architecture.
Only one paper (by Sanders et al.) discusses the question of gender in participatory architecture [7]. This issue remains insufficiently explored and developed in this Special Issue. There is an increasing body of work and knowledge about gender in architecture, design, and participation; however, this critical lens is absent from the research presented here. An explicit axis on gender-integrated processes in the call for contributions or a targeted command off the call might have strengthened this missing link. We clearly need to share more and transfer the knowledge, tools, and frameworks developed in gender studies to participatory architecture practitioners and researchers, and ask them to explicitly analyze their work through these issues. This analysis also applies to knowledge acquired in decolonial studies or emerging considerations about inclusion: participatory architecture needs to broaden its borders to become more participatory in nature.
In the same vein, we observe that contributions do not make strong political statements anymore when documenting participatory architecture practices and research. Historically, participatory approaches could be associated with "political arguments" [17]. However, this dimension is not explicitly developed nor mentioned through the contributions. Stiti and Ben Rajeb briefly emphasize how "social participation" and "political participation" currently articulate as two distinct dimensions in the literature they reviewed [10]. However, drawing a clear distinction between those is challenging, because political participation can be seen as a form of social participation. As the lines become blurry and the participants possibly become less prone to activism, we wonder whether dilution of the political argument might translate into a renewed model of participatory architecture?
To conclude, we observe that participatory practices permeabilize disciplinary boundaries. Those practices create borders that are undefined and fruitful buffer zones, prone to welcome experimentations. In these grey zones created by participation, we are pleased to note that architecture and research multiply their contemporary explorations.
This work is a part of the "Inter'Act" research project supported by the F.R.S.-FNRS Incentive Grant for Scientific Research number MIS/PGY F.4513.20.
Sennett, R. The Craftsman; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
Chbaly, H. The Challenges and Advantages of Implementing a Lean-Led Design Approach. Architecture 2022, 2, 157–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Lamirande, M. Aspects of Designing Inclusively from Practitioner Perspectives. Architecture 2022, 2, 497–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Loiseau, B.; Safin, S.; Tufano, A. Promoting Social Interaction through Participatory Architecture. Experimentation, Experience, Evaluation in a Social Housing Complex (Grand'Goule, Poitiers, 1974–2021). Architecture 2022, 2, 383–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Romariz Peixoto, L.; Rectem, L.; Pouleur, J.A. Citizen Participation in Architecture and Urban Planning Confronted with Arnstein's Ladder: Four Experiments into Popular Neighbourhoods of Hainaut Demonstrate Another Hierarchy. Architecture 2022, 2, 114–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Royer, M. What Participation Creates in Experimental Design Practices. The Case of a Mobile Third Place Built in a Retirement Home. Architecture 2022, 2, 53–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sanders, E.B.-N.; Murteza, N.D.; Sabatelli, M. Pizza and Poop: Using Playful Probes to Investigate Community in Semi-Public Restrooms on a University Campus. Architecture 2022, 2, 95–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Schelings, C.; Elsen, C. Assessing Participation: Toward Long-Term Experiences, Trajectories and Maturity. Architecture 2022, 2, 518–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sidse, C.; Nørtoft, K. Co-Designing Age-Friendly Neighborhood Spaces in Copenhagen: Starting with an Age-Friendly Co-Design Process. Architecture 2022, 2, 214–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Stiti, K.; Ben Rajeb, S. 2Ws + 1H Systematic Review to (Re)Draw Actors and Challenges of Participation(s): Focus on Cultural Heritage. Architecture 2022, 2, 307–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Zetlaoui-Léger, J.; Macaire, E.; Tcherkassky, C. Architect Collectives and the Coproduction of Places in the 'Grey Zones' of Urban Development Planning: The Educational Institution as a Mediation Framework. Architecture 2022, 2, 67–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Oldenburg, R. The Great Good Place: Cafés, Coffee Shops, Community Centers, Beauty Parlors, General Stores, Bars, Hangouts, and How They Get You through the Day, 1st ed.; Paragon House: New York, NY, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
Klinenberg, E. Palaces for the People: How Social Infrastructure Can Help Fight Inequality, Polarization, and the Decline of Civic Life; Crown Publishing Group: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
Arendt, H. Condition de L'homme Modern; Calmann-Lévy: Paris, France, 2022. [Google Scholar]
Tsing, A.L. The Mushroom at the End of the World. In The Mushroom at the End of the World; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
Schön, D.A. Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Knowl.-Based Syst. 1992, 5, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Beck, E.E. P for political: Participation is not enough. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 2002, 14, 77–92. [Google Scholar]
Hamarat, Y.; Schelings, C.; Elsen, C. Participation: A Disciplinary Border for Architectural Research and Practice. Architecture 2022, 2, 711-723. https://doi.org/10.3390/architecture2040038
Hamarat Y, Schelings C, Elsen C. Participation: A Disciplinary Border for Architectural Research and Practice. Architecture. 2022; 2(4):711-723. https://doi.org/10.3390/architecture2040038
Hamarat, Yaprak, Clémentine Schelings, and Catherine Elsen. 2022. "Participation: A Disciplinary Border for Architectural Research and Practice" Architecture 2, no. 4: 711-723. https://doi.org/10.3390/architecture2040038
Architecture, EISSN 2673-8945, Published by MDPI


text:
Under Armour Breach Exposed 150M MyFitnessPal Accounts
Under Armour has revealed that it's suffered one of the biggest hacks in history after data from 150 million users of its MyFitnessPal diet and fitness app was compromised in February.
According to Reuters, Under Armour shares were down 3 percent in after-hours trade.
"On March 25, the MyFitnessPal team became aware that an unauthorized party acquired data associated with MyFitnessPal user accounts in late February 2018," the company wrote in a statement. "The company quickly took steps to determine the nature and scope of the issue and to alert the MyFitnessPal community of the incident."
The stolen data includes account usernames, email addresses and scrambled passwords for the MyFitnessPal mobile app and website. Social Security numbers, drivers' license numbers and payment card data were not compromised.
The company said that the investigation is ongoing, but so far approximately 150 million user accounts were affected by the breach, which is the largest of the year and one of the top five in history. Under Armour stated it doesn't know the identity of the unauthorized party.
MyFitnessPal users are being encouraged to change their passwords immediately, as well as to review their accounts for suspicious activity.
Under Armour bought MyFitnessPal in 2015 for $475 million. The app and website is part of the connected fitness division, which accounted for 1.8 percent of Under Armour's $5 billion in total sales last year.
While the breach did not include financial data, there is still much to be gained by stealing large quantities of email addresses. In fact, email addresses retrieved in a 2014 attack that stole data from around 83 million JPMorgan Chase customers was later used in pump-and-dump schemes aimed at boosting stock prices.
"We continue to monitor for suspicious activity and to coordinate with law enforcement authorities," Under Armour informed its customers. "We continue to make enhancements to our systems to detect and prevent unauthorized access to user information."
Related Items:cyberattacks, data breach, hack, MyFitnessPal, News, security & fraud, Under Armour, What's Hot
Facebook Tackles Fake News By Fact-Checking Photos And Videos
Amazon Sees DDAs As Ticket To Teen Spending On Amazon

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


(Phoenix – June 11, 2015) – Vestis Group is pleased to announce that Brokers Natan Jacobs, Les Litwin and Chad Barber have completed the sale of Weldon House, a single-family rental located at 369 East Weldon Avenue, in Midtown Phoenix, Arizona for $120,000 or $130 per square foot.
Weldon House is a single story, single-family home located, between the 7's, in Central Phoenix, near the Valley Metro Light Rail, the Phoenix Art Museum, the Heard Museum, Arizona Opera, Phoenix Theatre, Lisa Sette Gallery, Margaret T. Hance Park, Park Central Mall, Phoenix Children's Hospital, Arizona Heart Hospital, and boutiques and popular eateries such as The Pie Hole, Humble Pie, Wy Knot Cafe, The Main Ingredient Ale House & Cafe, Bikini Beans Expresso, MacAlpine's Soda Fountain, Rice Paper, Urban Vine, America's Taco Shop, Green, Nami, Gadzooks, Taco Guild, Sutra Midtown Yoga, Salvador Calvano Hair and some of our State's top schools including Xavier College Preparatory and Brophy College Preparatory.
The buyer, MODE Homes, is a privately owned real estate firm specializing in reinventing unique, historic and midcentury modern homes with contemporary design and modern amenities. The buyer plans to spend over $130,000 ($76 per square foot) to rehabilitate and improve the project.
The seller was a private investor from Ashland, Oregon.


We are passionate about being an authentic, relational, and grace-filled community committed to Jesus Christ. God's Word is at the core of what we do.
We long to be a place where the isolated become connected, the busy become focused, and the broken become whole through the power of Jesus. If that's what you're looking for too, welcome home.
We believe that your next step is to grow spiritually in a Greenhouse Environment, where people fellowship and grow together as disciples of Jesus Christ, in a comfortable, non-threatening environment centered on the Bible and energized by the support of others committed to personal growth.
Green Valley Church should be a place where you feel like you become all that God intends and where you can find a place of significance in our community. Many people are investing in our community and beyond using their God-given strengths. We hope to help you find what you love to do and what you're passionate about.


Looks very good for events. It would be better to use the attachment feature to post a screenshot image (.png) rather than a pdf report. The F12 button on your computer saves the screenshot to a subdirectory of Sleepyhead in your Documents folder, and it can be uploaded from there.
The chart suggest you have some remaining flow limitations, and I suspect that is what is driving your pressure to the maximum setting. It would be helpful to see the flow limit graph included. I suspect you may eventually want to use EPR at 3 and perhaps allow 1 additional cm of maximum pressure. Fantastic results, and much better than mine from last night. Hopefully you feel as good as this looks.
I usually change from side to side during the night and know it when it happens. Usually I fall right back to sleep. Last night I was more fully awakened when turning over, and once or twice I had an itch under the mask which startled me when my finger hit the mask. I even lifted the mask to scratch it which may have lead to the big leaks. I think that's what awakened me more than usual.
I also know the mask I borrowed from the doctor's office fit better than the new one the DME gave me. I never had to adjust that one. This takes a few adjustments even when putting it on so I don't get air blown in my eyes. I was hoping it would get better over time, and it seems to be getting better (or maybe I just want it to be better).
Is this the flow chart you were looking for? If not, where can I find it?
I couldn't get to the screen shots through sleepyhead, so hopefully this .png works.
I raised my pressure from 7-12 to 8-13 and raised the EPR from 2 to 3. I'm still hitting the upper limits of my pressure.
We knew you would hit the upper limit because of the flow limitations, but this pressure range results in essentially a zero AHI, so higher pressure is not the answer anyway. This is pretty typical of the Autoset, and for those with persistent flow limitations. We use as much pressure support or EPR as is available on that machine to minimize flow limits, but limit the maximum pressure because it's more comfortable and you don't need it. I think you're home for now with regard to settings.
Am I understanding this correctly? Flow limitations are the start of events. The machine detects them and increases the pressure to try to avoid the events. In my case, the upper limit of pressure is enough to avoid almost all events, so there is no real value in increasing the pressure further.
What causes persistent flow limitations?
Thanks for your help! I'm totally new at trying to read and understand these charts and understand the traits I display.
Events (OA, Hypopnea), Snores, and Flow Limits all drive responses in terms of pressure. I do suggest that you drop Mask Pressure and move Flow Limits to your main chart and squeeze snores in too. We don't need a lot of detail on Flow Limits or snores.
In your case Flow Limits, you can think of them as mini Hypopneas, are what is driving your pressure. The high pressure is a question of comfort for you on this machine, you can drop it as long as your AHI does not significantly rise.
Treat for Flow Limits is to increase Pressure Support (EPR) but that is maxed out. If you are not tolerant of this CPAP it is likely that an Auto-BiLevel without backup such as the ResMed VAuto, could reduce the flow limits with higher than 3 PS (Pressure Support). I don't think you need this machine.
(01-20-2019, 11:12 AM)duncanblizzard Wrote: Am I understanding this correctly? Flow limitations are the start of events. The machine detects them and increases the pressure to try to avoid the events. In my case, the upper limit of pressure is enough to avoid almost all events, so there is no real value in increasing the pressure further.
Here are the definitions. For obstructive events the cause is identical. To have "Clinical Significance" they need to have either an arousal or an Oxygen DeSAT associated with them.
I had no events last night, but it was a poor night's sleep. I've been trying to read a lot and better understand my data particularly flow limitations.
Can you help me understand why the flow rate is so erratic? I'm guessing the mask pressure changes are reflecting the flow rate. There were no snores.
Can we tell if the flow limitations are inspiratory or expiratory? If so, how can we differentiate them?
Are there other graphs I should be including to better understand this?


text:
Maydenoptila baynesi är en nattsländeart som beskrevs av Wells 1983. Maydenoptila baynesi ingår i släktet Maydenoptila och familjen smånattsländor. Inga underarter finns listade i Catalogue of Life.

Källor

Smånattsländor
baynesi

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Try as you might . . .
See how the RIBA, like everyone else, scrambled to get a handle on Brexit to try and better inform members. But policy shifts like this are just the thin edge of the political wedge that ends, beguilingly, in places like Bernini's piazza in front of St Peter's, Versailles – or even in the megalomania of Germania.
But I read recently that architect Eyal Weizman – whose 'Forensic Architecture' group made detailed studies of methods of spatial control employed in the Occupied Territories – has been asked to reconstruct the site of a murder. Relatives of Turkish victims of a neo-Nazi hate crime in a Kassel internet café made the request to try and shed light on the as yet unsolved case. Here, the idea that architecture can be an active verb rather than just a noun is thrilling.
Hands on your DAB dials! Fix radio, the digital station 'aimed at tradespeople', launched last week with a PR campaign – handing out bacon butties at 1,400 building sites during May. That's over a tonne of pig! Fix 'will provide music and cheeky banter' to the UK's builders, plumbers, sparks and roofers. But a word about the schedule. The breakfast show will disappear for a cuppa between 10 and 11.30, the afternoon slot knocks off early on a Friday; and the bandwidth doubles after 6pm or at weekends. Former Capital Radio star Steve Penk will also do a hilarious daily wind-up where he'll randomly ring an architect live on air and tell them the contractor's just gone bust.


text:
Tipton Harriers
The following list shows the news articles for the year selected in reverse date order (i.e. latest first) and these articles typically contain general news and reports.
Membership Rates 2010/11 27/04/2012	 1552
Racing Round-up 02/01/2011	 1854
West Midlands Virgin London Mini Marathon Trials 22/12/2010	 2459
West Mids XC League - Redditch 13/12/2010	 1634
Nicholls 18th and Mcleod 27th at Euro Cross!! 12/12/2010	 1711
Nicholls and McLeod in GB action on Sunday!!! 09/12/2010	 2788
London Marathon places 09/12/2010	 1828
Birmingham and Mid Womens Lge, Round 2 05/12/2010	 2405
Sporthall and Triangular League 01/12/2010	 1760
Senior League's this Saturday 30/11/2010	 1689
Midland 5 and 7 XC - Aldersley 28/11/2010	 1916
Liverpool XC - McLeod & Nicholls selected for Euros!!! 28/11/2010	 1972
Stuart Eaton Memorial Service 23/11/2010	 1828
Nicholls sets new course record 21/11/2010	 2757
Tipton improve at 2nd Young Athletes XC League match 13 Nov 17/11/2010	 3524
Stuart Eaton 10/11/2010	 1968
6th for Men and 28th for Women at National Cross Relays 07/11/2010	 1667
Track and Field Presentation Evening 05/11/2010	 1771
Hinchy 4th and Stormer from Jelle 03/11/2010	 1997
Birmingham and Midland Women's League tomorrow 29/10/2010	 1620
Phil Nicholls third in Birmingham Half 28/10/2010	 3424
National Road Relays Women's 4-stage 18/10/2010	 1634
Marathon Medals 17/10/2010	 2093
Bronze at National 6 Stage & Fastest leg for Ryan 16/10/2010	 2027
Martin Williams 14th at Commonwealths 15/10/2010	 1706
Endurance Training Day - Saturday 23rd October 12/10/2010	 2006
Triangular League 06/10/2010	 2537
Half Marathon Workshops 30/09/2010	 1846
Seniors Endurance session and food this weekend 28/09/2010	 1532
Young Athletes Road Relays 27/09/2010	 2352


Many economists take GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of a country as the determining factor in deciding about the occurrence of an economic recession.
According to them when the turn down in the economic activities of a country leads to a negative GDP, economic recession is said to have taken place.
Such a negative GDP is observed for some months and then it's pronounced that an economic recession has set in. It may not be a severe one but a recession it surely is, technically speaking.
In addition to GDP, production data, sales statistics, employment records, inflation rate etc. are also taken into account to make sure the setting in of a recession. Ever country keeps on facing recessions but mostly these remain active only for short periods of time.
The stock markets are the most hit by a recession and they drop just on the onset of it. Many a time it has been seen that stock market activity drops to about 50% of its initial value just within the first few weeks of a recession. The economies that are market based have to pass through a very tricky situation.
It is usually believed that government interference in such economies worsens the situation. But, as is natural, governments cannot be just silent onlookers. They adopt certain corrective measure whether these are liked by the business people or not.
These corrective measures are dependent on the type of economy prevailing in a particular country. Governments may take resort to deficit spending or may agree to a policy of tax cuts. Both of these measures are helpful in the generation of money within the affected economy.
Then, there is the question of boosting the confidence of customers and investors. This is an important aspect that is often not tackled well by the governments.
As a matter of fact, in this world characterized by market economies, investors deem market forces to be the supreme authority. They scarcely believe that governments can do much in this regard.
It's a prejudice that needs to be shunned, as governments have to take care of the common man also. Their policies cannot be framed exclusively for the investors.


Digitalization, technological innovation, co-creation, mobility, urbanization and many other forces are chaning our world and society today. It changes our customers and it also changes our business. As part of meeting these challenges, we have formed the group New Ventures in 2016.
New Venture's objective is to work with the business area of new markets within SMHI's Professional Services. The aim is to find tomorrow's big businesses with focus on scalability, automation and international potential. New Ventures is part of how we work with innovation and is an activity with a strong focus on entrepreneurial spirit.
The group uses Lean Startup as a method of business development, a well-known agile method for developing new business. We apply these principles in order to create maximum value in our products for our customers. The method requires close dialogue with users and the market.
A close relationship with users and actively analyzing new behaviors and trends.
Finding and developing tomorrow's big businesses and thereby moving our position forward into new areas.
Developing businesses outside of the current product portfolio.
New products based on application of our cutting edge competencies: meteorology, hydrology, climatology and oceanography.
Creating true value in our products is important and we always strive to work in active dialogue with users and customers.
We develop new businesses to strengthen SMHIs professional services but do not work with private venture capital. To succeed, we believe in partnerships with companies that possess unique skills. As part of this we have cooperated with the incubator Lead.
Would you like to cooperate with us? Contact us!
SMHI Timbr is a digital service (planning tool) designed for the production manager, which helps to understand conditions so that the ground in each area will be able to carry forestry without causing a driving injury. The product aims to streamline harvesting and spare the woodland.


text:
Ginsburg's Wish Is Not Constitution's Command
September 21, 2020 By Debbie Young
U. S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and LBJ Foundation President and CEO Mark K. Updegrove discuss the justice's trailblazing career at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 30, 2020. (LBJ Foundation Photo/Jay Godwin)
If the Democrats win in November and gain control of both Congress and the White House, they will pack the Court ASAP. Appeasing them by waiting to nominate a new Justice won't work.
Democrats Fear Loss of SCOTUS
SCOTUS is Democrats' best political and social instrument of change.
Democrats know voters do not support their plans enough to accomplish them using openly democratic methods.
Stop a Raw Electoral Play
Democrats already have threatened to contest the outcome of the election, which means this will take the challenge all the way to SCOTUS. An extra seat on the Court, held by a Constitutional textualist, is the best protection, even a deterrent, advises Andrew McCarthy, against a raw extra-electoral play.
Mr. McCarthy explains in NRO how Justice Ginsburg's replacement is strictly a matter of political calculation.
It is ridiculous for leading senators, administration officials, influential partisans, and pundits to enunciate the high-minded principles and precedents that supposedly control the propriety and timing of a nomination.
In reality, there are only two rules, both set forth in the Constitution:
A president, for as long as he or she is president, has the power to nominate a person to fill a Supreme Court seat.
That nominee can fill the seat only with the advice and consent of the Senate. That's it. Everything else is posturing. Everything else is politics.
Republican judicial nominees tend to be forces of stability favoring judicial restraint. Exercising judicial restraint enables Americans to "determine democratically how they wish to live."
Joe Biden demanded over the weekend restraint in picking a new Justice before the election: "The voters should pick the President, and the President should pick the justice for the Senate to consider."
Perhaps Joe doesn't realize that the voters actually have picked a President and Senate, "which together have full constitutional power and authority to pick a replacement for Ginsburg, right up until January 20, 2021," offers Francis Menton in The Manhattan Contrarian.
Why Has Biden Not Released Potential SCOTUS Names
By contrast, the public rightly sees Democratic judicial nominees as forces of radical change, imposed by judicial fiat at the expense of democratic self-determination. That is why Biden does not want to release his list of potential Supreme Court nominees. Democrats prudently fear that it would frighten voters and hurt his chances.
For now, President Trump is signaling that he intends in short order to announce a nominee to fill the vacancy left by Justice Ginsburg's passing, and that he will push for Senate consideration.
There is a good chance that he won't get Senate consideration before the election . . . but that the nomination of a solid prospective justice, and the inevitable comparison of the kinds of jurists a Biden administration would appoint, will help the president's reelection bid.
Ginsburg's Wishes Not Constitution's Command
Much is being made by the media of Justice Ginsburg's pre-death dictated statement to her granddaughter: "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."
As the WSJ points out, the deceased Justice's wish, despite what she wrote, is not the Constitution's command.
The President has the power to nominate a successor as soon as he desires, and the Senate then has the power to confirm or not. The timing of that vote is a matter for the Senate to decide, and the current Senate can hold a confirmation vote even on the last day it is in session if it chooses.
Even though Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been ill for a while, she clearly wanted to be replaced by a Democrat president. As The Spectator points out, the renowned Justice could have retired when she was 80, which would have allowed then President Obama to replace her with a much younger Justice.
Why didn't she? Justice Ginsburg bet that Hillary Clinton would win in 2016.
RBG lost that bet.
The Constitution Rock
The Constitution is Outlawed
The End of the Line for Ruth Bader Ginsburg?
Neil Gorsuch—Next Supreme Court Justice
Debbie, editor-in-chief of Richardcyoung.com, has been associate editor of Dick Young's investment strategy reports for over three decades. When not in Key West, Debbie spends her free time researching and writing in and about Paris and Burgundy, France, cooking on her AGA Cooker, driving her Porsche Boxter S through Vermont and Maine, and practicing yoga.
Latest posts by Debbie Young (see all)
Don't Believe 'em. They're Coming for Your Gas Stove - January 27, 2023
The Power of Words - January 26, 2023
US Debt Now Exceeds Annual GDP? - January 25, 2023
Florida: Enjoy Certain Freedoms and Individual Liberties
You May Be Surprised by America's "Least Woke City"
Progressive Liberalism Has Dragged America near Ruination
The Simple, Elegant Power of the Retirement Compounders
Globalism Has Made America Dependent on Foreign Countries
Is Rutin Useful in Preventing Blood Clots?
Yes! Money Can Bring You Happiness
America's States Rights Revolution


text:
'Madrid wasn't the final chapter for us'
Jun 23, 2019 - 02:00 pm By Staff Reporter
Jurgen Klopp has told Liverpool fans the club won't rest on its laurels as the Reds go in search of their first Premier League title in 30 years.
Despite leading the Premier League table at Christmas, Liverpool were eventually pipped to the title by Manchester City, but did win the Champions League.
READ: Mahrez on Salah comparisons
Some have said that is the closest the Reds will get to beating an imperious City side to the title, but Klopp begs to differ and has promised the Anfield faithful that he and his side will fight tooth and nail to usurp the Citizens.
"The most important thing for Liverpool fans, when reliving the memories of this season, is to remember it's the start – not a conclusion," Klopp revealed, according to the Mirror.
"Madrid wasn't the final chapter for us – I think we're still writing the introduction.
"When we were travelling around Liverpool with the European Cup on that magical Sunday, the words that I heard sung the loudest were: 'We're never gonna stop! That's what this team and club has to live by.
"We arrived at this point because we were hungry for moments like June 1."
PSG's next departure confirmed


MANILA, Philippines (BP) – The plight of people who survived a Dec. 17 typhoon in the Philippines has been worsened in 14 provinces by heavy rains that have caused new flooding. Southern Baptists are helping to provide assistance in the aftermath of the storm, which killed about 1,250 people and left hundreds of thousands homeless.
The plight of people who survived a Dec. 17 typhoon in the Philippines has been worsened in 14 provinces by heavy rains that have caused new flooding. Southern Baptists are continuing to help provide assistance in the aftermath of the storm, which killed about 1,250 people and left hundreds of thousands homeless.
The new floods affected 14 provinces in the country's east coast and southern region, according to news reports. Relief and rescue operations were being stretched by the fresh floods as soldiers, police officers and volunteers were dispatched to help more than 53,000 new victims, Benito Ramos, administrator of the Office of Civil Defense, told the McClatchy-Tribune news service.
Baptist Global Response initiated a rapid response with local partners shortly after the storm, Melancon said.
Reports of more than 1,000 unaccounted-for victims continue to circulate but only 84 have been verified, government officials said. While tropical storms occur regularly in the Philippines, the devastation caused by Washi was worsened because it struck the southern part of the country, where such storms are not as frequent and people are not as prepared to deal with them.


text:
Q: Does creating creating an unknown quantum state result in a superposition? Suppose a blind man builds a machine that paints three apples with three colors, either red, blue or green. Once the machine has done this, are the three apples in the following superposition:
\begin{align}
&|R\rangle_1\otimes |G\rangle_2\otimes |B\rangle_3 + |R\rangle_1\otimes |B\rangle_2\otimes |G\rangle_3\\
   +&|G\rangle_1\otimes |R\rangle_2\otimes |B\rangle_3+|G\rangle_1\otimes |B\rangle_2\otimes |R\rangle_3\\
    +&|B\rangle_1\otimes |R\rangle_2\otimes |G\rangle_3+|B\rangle_1\otimes |G\rangle_2\otimes |R\rangle_3
\end{align}
or is the wavefunction just one of $|R\rangle_1\otimes |G\rangle_2\otimes |B\rangle_3, |R\rangle_1\otimes |B\rangle_2\otimes |G\rangle_3, etc...$?
It feels like because the man is blind, the apples should be in a superposition as any measurement (say by asking someone else to check the colour of the apple) will lead to the wavefunction collapsing to one of the states in the superposition. However, on the other hand it feels like because the machine definitely assigns a colour to each apple, the wave-function should not be in a superposition. So which is it?

A: Based on your wording, the created state is a mixture of the component ones, not a superposition.
If you engineer a state that is either $|\psi\rangle$ or $|\phi\rangle$ but you are not sure which one it is, then the overall state oughts to be described as a mixture of the form $p|\psi\rangle\!\langle\psi|+(1-p)|\phi\rangle\!\langle\phi|$, with weights $p,1-p$ depending on your prior (that is, on the probabilities with which you estimate each component state to have been created).
A superposition $\alpha|\psi\rangle+\beta|\phi\rangle$ is a completely different beast. See e.g. Is "quantum superposition" just a fancy way of saying that a system is in one state or another with some probabilities?, What's an atomic superstate/superposition, and how is it possible?, Are superposition quantum systems really in two pure states at once?, How is quantum superposition different from mixed state?, and links therein.

A: Talking of superpositions only makes sense for objects which you can measure in more than one basis - say, the color basis and a basis of "red plus green" vs. "red minus green". This is not possible for apples.
So no, this has nothing to do with superposition. (More generally, incomplete knowledge has nothing to do with superposition.)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


SHOVEL RACK FOR ENCLOSED TRAILERS. THIS RACK CAN HOLD UP TO 6 SHOVELS. EQUIPMENT RACKS FEATURE A HOOK DESIGN AT THE TOP OF THE RACK THAT ALLOWS THEM TO HANG FROM THE TRAILER FOR ADDED STRENGTH. THEY ARE PREDRILLED SO THAT THEY MAY BE SCREWED SECURELY TO THE WALL. THE UNIQUE AND DURABLE "HAMMERED" PAINT FINISH WILL LAST FOR MANY YEARS!


text:
const express = require('express');
const bodyParser = require('body-parser');
const compression = require('compression');
const sanitize = require('mongo-sanitize');
const AsyncLock = require('async-lock');
const passport = require('passport');
const { loadConfig } = require('./modules/helpers/GeneralHelper');
const MongoAdapter = require('./modules/MongoAdapter');
const { DirectoryRouter, Route } = require('./modules/directoryRouter');
const ApiContext = require('./modules/ApiContext');
const routeList = require('./routeList');
const defineStrategies = require('./modules/defineStrategies');
const getVersion = require('./modules/getVersion');
const checkDataFormat = require('./modules/checkDataFormat');

const dataFormatVersion = 1;

module.exports = async () => {
	try {
		console.log('+------------------+');
		console.log('| Frost API Server |');
		console.log('+------------------+');

		const { version } = getVersion();
		console.log(`version: ${version}`);

		console.log('loading config ...');
		let config = loadConfig();
		if (config == null) {
			console.log('config file not found. please create by command. (command: npm run generate-configs)');
			return;
		}

		const streams = new Map(); // memo: keyはChannelName
		const lock = new AsyncLock();

		const dbConfig = config.database;
		console.log('connecting database ...');
		const repository = await MongoAdapter.connect(
			dbConfig.host,
			dbConfig.database,
			dbConfig.username,
			dbConfig.password);

		console.log('checking dataFormat ...');
		const dataFormatState = await checkDataFormat(repository, dataFormatVersion);
		if (dataFormatState != 0) {
			if (dataFormatState == 1) {
				console.log('please initialize in setup mode. (command: npm run setup)');
			}
			else if (dataFormatState == 2) {
				console.log('migration is required. please migrate database in setup mode. (command: npm run setup)');
			}
			else {
				console.log('this format is not supported. there is a possibility it was used by a newer api. please clear database and restart.');
			}
			repository.disconnect();
			return;
		}

		defineStrategies(repository);

		const app = express();
		app.disable('x-powered-by');
		app.set('etag', 'weak');
		app.use(require('./modules/middlewares/apiSend')); // memo: apiSendはAPIレスポンスを返すときに必要なので早い段階で呼び出すほうが良い
		app.use(compression({ threshold: 0, level: 9, memLevel: 9 }));
		app.use(passport.initialize());
		app.use(bodyParser.json({ limit: '1mb' }));
		app.use((err, req, res, next) => {
			if (err instanceof SyntaxError && err.message.indexOf('JSON')) {
				req.apiContext.response(400, 'invalid json format');
				res.apiSend(req.apiContext);
				return;
			}
			next();
		});

		app.use((req, res, next) => {
			// sanitize
			req.body = sanitize(req.body);

			// apiContext
			req.apiContext = new ApiContext(repository, config, { streams, lock, query: req.query, body: req.body });

			// cors headers
			res.header('Access-Control-Allow-Origin', '*');
			res.header('Access-Control-Allow-Headers', 'Origin, X-Requested-With, Content-Type, Accept');

			next();
		});

		// add all routes
		app.use(passport.authenticate('accessToken', { session: false, failWithError: true }));
		const directoryRouter = new DirectoryRouter(app);
		for (const route of routeList) {
			directoryRouter.addRoute(new Route(route[0], route[1]));
		}

		// not found
		app.use((req, res) => {
			const apiContext = req.apiContext;
			apiContext.response(404, 'endpoint not found, or method is not supported');
			res.apiSend(apiContext);
		});

		// error handling
		app.use((err, req, res, next) => {
			const apiContext = req.apiContext;
			if (err.status != null) {
				apiContext.response(err.status, err.message);
			}
			else {
				console.log(err);
				apiContext.response(500, 'internal error');
			}
			res.apiSend(apiContext);
		});

		const http = app.listen(config.port, () => {
			console.log(`listen on port: ${config.port}`);
		});

		require('./streamingServer')(http, directoryRouter, streams, repository, config);
	}
	catch (err) {
		console.log('Unprocessed Server Error:', err);
	}
};

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
flat assembler > Main > Why this operation is not possible ?
The_Unknown_Member
Hi folks. Im wondering why this doesn't work ?
use32 ; x86_32
mov bx, 30d
mov eax, 10d
add eax, bx
What's the problem with this ? Why I can't add the number stored in the 16bit bx register to the number stored in the 32bit eax register and store the result in the eax register ?
Because the CPU has no instruction that does it. It's just the way it is designed, as it would waste opcode space for no reason (each instruction requires some bytes to identify its "opcode").
Furs wrote:
as it would waste opcode space for no reason (each instruction requires some bytes to identify its "opcode").
It requires space from the CPU Register's memory or from the RAM ?
Each instruction is encoded and is in RAM when executed (well, it's in the icache, but let's keep it simple).
Try compile this and look at the resulting binary file:
mov eax, ebx
It should be the two bytes 89 D8 (in hex), this is the encoding of the instruction (each instruction is encoded differently and has varying length) and what the CPU executes.
Now try:
mov ax, bx
It should be 66 89 D8, as you can see it's the same two bytes at end but with a 66 byte prefix in front of it so now it's 3 bytes long, which tells it to use 16-bit operands instead of 32-bit. (this is in 32-bit mode). This is simply how the CPU works, they could've designed it some other way, but it isn't...
There is no encoding for "mov eax, bx" that's why FASM won't compile it. (well not in the x86 architecture, which is what we're talking about)
Note that an actual binary executable won't start with the insns and have only the instructions. Though we didn't specify so FASM simply outputs binary for instructions. (useful for testing / learning ).
The_Unknown_Member wrote:
It's down to Rule #1 of the X86 architecture: Both operands (source, destination) must be of the same size. There are a few exceptions, but this is the golden rule.
Nothing to do with cache, opcode, instruction length etc.
"There are a few exceptions" nulls your argument.
shl eax, cl
which assembles because it has a valid encoding.
It has everything to do with encoding and opcodes and what the CPU is able to dispatch.
Thats not nullifying. That CONFORMING to what I meant by a few exceptions.
It doesn't answer why it doesn't compile, which is what he asked. Why. Your answer was "because the golden rule blah, with few exceptions".
So if he asks "why does shl eax, cx fail to assemble but shl eax, cl works?" what will your answer be?
"The latter is an exception" isn't helpful and doesn't answer the question. The fact that it doesn't have such an encoding (CPU design) is the exact answer.
The job of an assembler is to translate your mnemonics (e.g. mov eax, ebx) into opcodes and insn encodings. Period. If there's no encoding, how can it translate? Thus it is literally the answer to why "it doesn't compile".
It IS the golden rule of the X86 Instruction Set Architecture (ISA). Both operands must be of the same size! (of course there are a few exceptions).
What, you didn't know this? OMG!! The rule is there ever since 8086 processors! Every single X86 ASM programmers know this simple rule very well!
Just for the OP. List of Rules of the X86 Instruction Architecture and Format.
Rule 1: Both operands must be of the same size (with few exceptions)
Rule 2: Both cannot be memory operands
Rule 3: An immediate cannot be a destination operand
There are more rules which you can find from Intel/AMD manuals. Stick to them, and you'll be fine. Do not take technical advice from INCOMPETENT people.
Thanks to all of you for the answers
system error wrote:
That's just your opinion. I don't see any "Golden Rule" in Intel Manuals. You are right that most instructions use the same size for all operands, but that's not the reason why it won't assemble. The pure reason is that an assembler can only assemble instructions which have a valid encoding for the CPU to dispatch.
Intel Manual, in fact, is very formal and lists the encoding exactly and specifies that the operands are both r16/r16 or r32/r32 or r64/r64, etc every single time. There's no "as per golden rule, operands must be the same" assumption. There's no implicit register size anywhere. It is always explicitly shown.
@The_Unknown_Member: bookmark the following site, while it's not as good as official Intel docs, it's good enough to browse (PDF is more of a pain) for quick references: http://www.felixcloutier.com/x86/
For example, for MOV: http://www.felixcloutier.com/x86/MOV.html (see there all valid encodings)
It Is NOT my opinion. OMG, this guy! Are you even an assembly programmer??
The reason it won't compile is because it violates a SYNTAX RULES of assembly language. It is called SYNTAX ERROR. And the syntax error message from FASM is..
Error: Operand sizes do not match
That's why people call it a "RULE" in laymen's term. My first post in this thread already mentioned that so that a beginner like OP would not be misled by GARBAGE ADVISES from incompetent people like YOU.
This syntax rules is built around the limitation / restriction of x86 architecture - BOTH OPERANDS MUST BE OF THE SAME SIZE, with a few exceptions.
And you call yourself an assembly programmer?
I was talking about the CPU. Did you see the part Intel Manuals? No? Then STFU. The assembler gives you a descriptive error so you know what to fix, it has nothing to do with the reason it won't assemble -- I mean, "syntax" can be altered with macros, so what's your point? You can make "mov eax, bx" assemble if you use a macro. Golden Rule broken? Too bad you won't have a proper encoding to give it (because it doesn't exist).
Stop bothering me with your child tantrums because you didn't get enough attention as a baby.
I was talking about the CPU, moron. Did you see the part Intel Manuals? No? Then STFU. The assembler gives you a descriptive error so you know what to fix, it has nothing to do with the reason it won't assemble -- I mean, "syntax" can be altered with macros, so what's your point?
Calm your tits down. No need for harsh language in here. This is not your thread and we are not your family members where "fcuking" language is part of your family's upbringing.
The rules of the INTEL INSTRUCTION SYNTAX is implemented by the assemblers. So the "OPERAND SIZE MUST OF OF EQUAL SIZE" is not my opinion. So this error message
is not Tomasz Gryzstar's "opinion" either.
He takes that rules from Intel/AMD. And every single ASM programmers out there know this extremely important rule.
I question your competency to give technical advises to beginners like the OP. You're a big disgrace.
mov ax, bx[/code]It should be 66 89 D8, as you can see it's the same two bytes at end but with a 66 byte prefix in front of it so now it's 3 bytes long, which tells it to use 16-bit operands instead of 32-bit. (this is in 32-bit mode). This is simply how the CPU works, they could've designed it some other way, but it isn't...
No Furs, he's asking a beginner's question. He's probably not interested in listening to GARBAGE like instruction prefixes at this moment. The real reason is SYNTAX ERROR. What error did the code violate?
Operands must be of the same size
You don't have to go to that extra miles extending your GARBAGE to beginners. No, it doesn't make you look any smarter or "important" by doing that. It makes you look desperate.
I'm fairly certain he can read english perfectly fine. You know he gets the error too, right? You understand this, right? You're not the only one who can read an error message, shocking I know.
You're so helpful copy pasting a message he is already aware of because he also gets it.
He's obviously asking because he wants to know why the operands must match.
Question: "Why must the operands match [because I get the error]? Why can't I add 16-bit number to 32-bit number?"
Answer: "Because the operands must match!"
Only system error could answer "Why X" with "Because X" (X being same thing).
The_Unknown_Member: If you need to add bx to eax you can manually extend it and then add:
movzx ecx,bx ;zero extend to full 32 bits.
add eax,ecx
;or
movsx ecx,bx ;sign extend to 32 bits
So you have to "know" if the number stored in bx is signed or unsigned so that you can use the proper extend function to convert it to a full 32-bit value, and then add it to eax.
As for "why" you can't do it with one instruction, the reason is as Furs stated, there is no encoding for it. In theory Intel/AMD could create new instructions "addzx r32,r16" and "addsx r32,r16", but there would be little call for it, and they would mostly go unused, so it is unlikely that we will ever see such instructions.
The only "rule" I could agree with here is number 3, since doing such a thing makes no sense. But the first is already broken by the existence of movsx/movzx, and the second is broken by the existence of movs and push [mem]/pop [mem]. For the push/pop case, one of the memory operands is implied/hidden so it is easy to forget that it is really a memory/memory operation. In theory the instruction could be written "mov [--esp],[mem]" which would more clearly indicate the operation (and yes I fully appreciate the irony of using the C construct of -- to illustrate an asm line).
There's actually way more instructions that use a differently-sized operands, especially with immediates. For 64-bit mode with 64-bit operand especially, almost every immediate is actually 32-bit, except for one case of mov (there's also a sign-extended 32-bit immediate to 64-bit register though).
So for example you can't add a huge 64-bit immediate to a 64-bit register directly, unless it fits into a 32-bit signed immediate (because it is sign-extended). There's also the 8-bit sign extended forms, but those won't "fail" to assemble if the immediate is larger though, the assembler will just pick the 32-bit immediate form. There's no 64-bit immediate encoding though, so in that case it *will* fail to assemble.


text:
Lily-Rose Depp lands major film role
Like father, like daughter
By Harper's BAZAAR UK
Picture: Getty Images
For Lily-Rose Depp, it isn't all too surprising that she has finally caught the acting bug. Just like her Oscar-nominated father, Johnny, who has an affinity for avant-garde characters (such as his iconic portrayals of Edward Scissorhands, Willy Wonka and the Mad Hatter), 16-year-old Depp is following in those same footsteps as she's signed on to her own unique role.
According to Variety, she will be playing an impoverished dance wunderkind named Isadora Duncan in Stephanie Di Giusto's directorial debut, a period drama called The Dancer.
While the film is centered around the life of modern dance legend Loie Fuller (who will be portrayed by French pop-singer-turned-movie-star, Soko), Depp plays a close friend of Fuller: "a San Francisco native who grew up in poverty and became a dance prodigy, quickly achieving worldwide fame," Variety says.
"Quickly achieving worldwide fame" should soon feel familiar to the young actress. Also cast as Natalie Portman's little sister in next year's 1930s-inspired Planetarium, it looks like this is just the beginning of a very promising film career.
Via HarpersBazaar.com
MORE LILY-ROSE DEPP
Lily-Rose Depp's new film role
Lily-Rose Depp to star in music video
Lily-Rose Depp for Chanel
Lily Rose Depp lands a Chanel fragrance campaign
Lily-Rose Depp lands first fashion shoot
Lily-Rose Depp stars in music video
See what Lily-Rose Depp wore to her prom
Lily-Rose Depp and Vanessa Paradis pose together to benefit Planned Parenthood