Just guessing here. But a shelter need to have mechanical ventilation, and a way to escape if the main door is blocked. So modern shelters usually have a plate at a wall, below ground, and when removed, lets dirt from the outside fall in and provides a way to leave the shelter. Such things may not have existed around 1900.
That's a really good idea I might never have thought of. But I hope they include a shovel or pickaxe or something in the shelter. I'd be worried about the soil in front of the entrance being hardened or full of tree roots.
Newer ones in Finland tend to have these smaller escape hatches + tunnels that lead away from the building. The main blast door being inside the building
> plate at a wall, below ground, and when removed, lets dirt from the outside fall in
..collapsed parking garage with four stories above you of reinforced concrete rubble and knotted, melted, corkscrewed rebar? Respect the Swiss, they have a history of collectively trying harder than anyone else.
Dialing 911, it instantly starts calling, and the send button changes to hangup.
I find this kind of crap all over the place in Android - buttons dancing around or changing function so idiotically that it almost feels like my phone is intentionally trying to trip me up.
The designers also seem stuck under an assumption the user is operating in an act-look feedback loop. In reality, good tools let you shift your focus away from them once you become proficient - the mechanics of their use becomes second nature and fades into the background allowing you to focus on your task - exactly the way you found yourself relying on muscle memory in that razor-focused, high stakes situation.
I'm saying this not only as a lifelong tech nerd, but from lived experience as a First Responder (where we routinely deal with high-stress situations, and aim to train with our equipment until it's too familiar to get wrong). It's unconscionable they'd ship such an inconsistent behavior in a function that is at once critical and rarely-exercised.
The problem wasn't you, it was your shoddily designed tool.
> The designers also seem stuck under an assumption the user is operating in an act-look feedback loop
Remember that most of the technology industry today is primarily an ad delivery platform - either current one (aka there are ads there already), or a future one (so even areas where there aren’t ads yet aren’t safe).
Designers want you to always be in an act-look loop, because then you’ll either look at the ad which is already there, or at the very least generate more “engagement” which pumps up their analytics numbers (translates to promotions/salary) and ultimately translates to more ads (the company can now pitch this high-engagement screen real estate to the highest bidder).
The era where computers/technology did things as their primary function appears to be just a happy accident. It’s only a matter of time before you get ads for health insurance while you dial 911.
The constant A/B tests in Google apps like the Play Store drives me nuts. Buttons constantly changing around which is equal to being gaslit because you are wondering whether you just misremembered where the button was.
New 21 century UI design: "John, you will work on a new project: change the send button in a recording button depending on context and moon phases. Alice, you will also work on a new project: Round the corners of UI elements and increase the space between them, so they are more visible. But everything must fit on one screen, no scrollbars allowed."
I think touch screen itself limits the possibilities to create UIs usable with minimum attention. You have to look at it to find the right area to press. All those buttons, knobs, sliders, etc., imitate the real thing, but only in 2D. Can't rely on feeling to find the right control, unlike with physical designs.
It's not the only culprit, of course. There's still room to at least design a layout that is predictable, and with buttons that are easily reachable.
Some UIs make me think the designer was an alien invader in a human body. It thinks nobody can tell, but when it designs a UI that can only be called "intuitive" if you have 7 fingers, the 2-nd and 5-th longer than the others, and the 3-rd one a tentacle... I got you, motherfucker!
> I think touch screen itself limits the possibilities to create UIs usable with minimum attention.
It has nothing to do with touchscreens. Windows 3.1 UI is thousand times more usable than the crap that is Android and iOS. The UI "designers" decided that everything must be a label and the only menus allowed are the hamburger ones.
Any content the moral panic at the time is panicking about will require age verification. Only things moral panickers believe is child-appropriate will be accessible without it.
This includes forums. If people can interact with each other, one of them miiiiiight be a child (no matter the forum's topic), and the other miiiiight be a pedophile. Therefore, ALL forums will be obliged by law to age-verify their users for them to be able to even read user submissions, this one here being a prime candidate.
And, note, this is a bipartisan effort in the US. All proposed bills are supported by Democrats and Republicans. Google is merely doing it on their own before the relevant laws are approved, so as to be ready when everyone starts struggling to become compliant or have their sites shutdown.
...maybe not, but a few bucks could still solve this problem
Sure, can't argue with that. But doesn't it bug you just a little that (paying a fee to avoid harassment) doesn't look all that disimilar from a protection racket? As to whether it's a few bucks or many, now you're just a mark negotiating the price.
It actually doesn't! Plenty of people never fly at all and many fly incredibly rarely. The Precheck and GE programs cost money to administer as they have to do background checks and conduct interviews. This actually accomplishes actual security goals, since it allows them to flag risky behavior and examine it.
Who benefits from these programs? Primarily heavy travelers (and optimizers like me who value their time saved more than the $24 a year). These programs also actually make everything better for everyone since I'm no longer taking up a space in the slower-moving, shoes-off line, and TSA/CBP get an actual background check done on me.
The way it is now, heavy travelers who can easily afford it, pay the full costs of the program.
Would you rather:
1. Precheck is free and paid for by all taxpayers even though a lot of people will never bother to enroll (you have to assume -- the cost is so low today that it can't be a barrier for almost anyone who can afford to fly, so it seems a ton of people can't be bothered to follow simple instructions and go get fingerprinted at Staples)
2. Precheck is eliminated and everyone has to go back to the dumb liquids-out, shoes-off thing
3. Precheck is eliminated and we just treat everyone like the Precheck people today, without doing any background checks. Basically like pre-9/11.
It might be, depending on the integrity of "the system".
I can make a system that flags stuff, too. That doesn't mean it's any good. If they can show there was no reasonable cause then they've got a leg to stand on.
It’s the literal truth. How can that be a false report? A false report means you reported something you know to be untrue, not that you relayed bad information.
It would only be negligence if the police were considered like some sort of dangerous wild animal that people need to avoid provoking, and can't be held responsible on its own.
Which may very well be accurate, but I can't imagine the law ever punishing someone on that basis.
reply