This is an American interpretation. Here in the US, cones, lights, or lane-blockers are used to close exits.
Culturally, its because American's won't read a sign and follow the instructions if we can still "do" it. You have to physically block us, and its too expensive to change all the signs.
Nah, it's actually the same here in Germany too - I live near a railway crossing which was recently rebuilt and couldn't be used for a few weeks. The "strike-through" at the intersection was just the first step, then there was a first barrier blocking half the street, with a sign "residents only", and then a bit later a second barrier, but still some people just absolutely had to drive past all those barriers until they were literally in the middle of the construction site to find out that no, it's really not possible to cross the tracks...
My favorite is Chicago's reversible express lanes, which have thirteen physical gates you have to blow through in order go to the wrong way. I always wonder if they add another set every time someone still drives through them all.
They aren’t closing the exit though as it’s needed so people can get down there for quite a few reasons. There are actual manned roadblocks a bit further in.
Yeah but the weekly WBR where the directors ask what a cell means on the DataNet report but the data isnt' sussed out so the L5 Data science guy that reports to the L7 PMT will spend the next week changing SQL to produce that requested view for the next week WBR.
Many L6 promos over the years went out to folks who could quickly and accurately build WBR decks that gave L8s the visibility they wanted.
So maybe Bezos is the lawyer, and all the directors are accountants.
Meta execs are probably wondering when the rest of the crowd just realizes what Facebook is and determines if they want to exchange their privacy for their services.
a lens translates things to a different view. so they either justified it somehow, or it changed the outcome. not a hair I'd want to be splitting in court.
"users expect an interactive experience with a website" - I think this is a generalization that is getting a lot of web developers into needlessly complex toolchains and frameworks.
When I'm in a browser, 99% of the time I expect the page to have what I'm looking for. I rarely care if its interactive. In fact, the more interactive it is, the less enjoyable the experience is. This holds even firmer when I'm on a desktop.
I tend to agree. It’s frustrating whenever whatever nugget of information I’m seeking is buried under multiple clicks (navigation, collapsible sections, modals, popovers, etc) and even worse when one or more of those clicks results in a loading spinner that takes longer to play its fade in transition than it would’ve taken to load an entire static page.
Definitely a good example, although you can extend it to so many. In the US if you say "tech" people suddenly scramble to you because everyone is afraid of betting against you and becoming blockbuster.
Ex: Wework is another one. Many of the big rich real estate families in NYC all were heavily invested in it. None of them wanted to be the dinosaur left behind even with a company that was claiming to be "tech" without really being tech.
Were there 23 lessons, or none? Seems like the author couldn't focus on what they "learned," which likely suggests the post is simply a way to increase their profile after what is largely considered a failure.
This article would have been way more valuable if distilled into a poignant lesson or insight about why Clubhouse failed.
Culturally, its because American's won't read a sign and follow the instructions if we can still "do" it. You have to physically block us, and its too expensive to change all the signs.