You ignored the vast majority of the practical problems pointed out in the parent link. Plumbing, roof pitch, acoustics, privacy, ventilation, insulation, etc.

I think plumbing was solved by not including it. Acoustics can be solved by not having a loud child living in there with you as can privacy. Ventilation, insulation, etc, all easy to deal with if you don't concern yourself with building codes.

You and the author are free to ignore these problems (at least, until the government evicts you from your own residence) but don't conflate ignoring a problem with solving it.

Does that happen with non permanent structures? I don't count the problems as ignored. They're actually not relevant for the intended use case.

From the article:

> If I want to spend my time writing blog posts, exploring new programming languages, and other things that I want to do but I am unlikely to get paid for, it’s helpful to opt out of certain common expenses. Housing is a major expense that is ripe for pruning.

I'd say "the intended use case" here is clearly to replace your primary residence, which is both what makes the project interesting and what casts the ignored topics in sharp relief.

You can replace your primary residence and at the same time change your lifestyle expectation.

From the article: "If you are considering a canvas dome, teepee, or yurt you should consider building a frameless dome as well."

I'd say that if you're considering replacing your primary residence with a teepee, you're looking at certain lifestyle expectation that don't necessarily include building codes.

You're probably also looking at a lifestyle that makes it difficult to "explore new programming languages." For that, you'll need to live in a city, so you can go poop and charge your laptop somewhere nearby, in which case building codes are relevant.